General updates, procedural generation, shout out

Before we delve into the rest of the news I wanted to give an update on the general state of things. First off we are SO close to hitting the 40% funded mark!. We are working hard on some big marketing pushes so we hope to see some uptick in the near future. We still need your help spreading the word though! Click on the share button here on the Kickstarter page to spread the word on facebook, jump on Twitter and tweet about us or re-tweet our posts, head over to Reddit and talk about our project or check out our existing posts, post on forums and tell everyone you know about us.

As far as Greenlight we saw a big uptick the last couple days, not exactly sure from what, but we are now 67% to the top 100 - about a 10% jump. If you haven’t had a chance go over there and give us a vote. Also get any of your friends on steam to give us a vote. The sooner we get Greenlit the better, this will be just one more piece of news we can put out to the press to get them talking about us!

I also have a question for all of our backers at the $10 level. What made you decide to go with the $10 level over the next step up of $35? The reason I ask is that this pledge level is one of the places we could see a big jump. If we had all of our $10 backers go up to the $35 level that would be over a 10% increase in funding getting us close to 50% funded. Maybe there is something that we can include in that level and above to make it more enticing? We want to hear from you so tell us what you think in the comments!

Development Progress

Even with the Kickstarter running we are still working hard on the game. Our big focus over the last 8 months was to get the pre-alpha demo together and ready for PAX East as well as for you, our Kickstarter backers. Now that we have passed those milestones we are moving forward on getting the game to an alpha state where we have all the base functionality in the game and ready for testing.

There is still some work that needs to happen to break up the static demo level and get it ready for the randomization functionality and the alpha but we have continued our hard work on the randomization functionality. I’ve asked our programmer to give us a rundown so here is some input from Chris.

In our demo level we used a static level that was composed of various modular tiles. These pieces are organized by hand by our level designer in a few variations to create everything in the game. Initially we hoped we could make tiles perfectly modular so that any tiles could fit with another but for the scope of game we are looking to make it would be needlessly complicated to try to do this and result in a less believable world. To alleviate this we have created an object layer that contains a group of boards which we can make quickly by piecing the board tiles together in any formation we wish. We are referring to this layer as the "Area" which is a general grouping for such things as Buildings, Parks and any other object grouping in the game.
The goal here is to be able to build out a large number of board tiles as a base and then quickly piece them together into dozens of variations of each area. Using trigger objects in boards we can also randomly generate events and scavenging points that synergizes with the area it belongs to. By making these triggers have a chance to spawn as opposed to always being present we can have an event or scavenging point appear visually in the same building several times, for example a refrigerator, but react differently depending on how the trigger is set. Sometimes you may be able to scavenge food from it, others you may not find anything. If its trigger is set you may find something completely unexpected.

We have been building out the first iteration of our level generator and the scripts required to start creating the above mentioned areas. The first iteration of our world generation uses large chunks of space to stream content. The chunk you start in will be preloaded but as you progress in any direction the appropriate local chunks will begin to construct themselves without additional loading required. Each chunk will start as a main road which acts as a seed. By branching out into sub streets in semi-random directions we can create roads/paths that are different each time you play.

Depending on level constraints this can be used to make urban world chunks or tightly packed towns. We then can grab from the pool of areas which are appropriate for the theme of the chunk to populate the road system with. Pieces of the chunk not affected by the road system will be assigned areas based on how much open space is available and what type of biome the zone is. As we generate these chunks we are also working on putting in radius values for the areas. These radius values would dictate what other areas can be built within a certain radius of the current area. This allows us to make sure that you don’t have an elementary school built right next to an advanced military base. Essentially it will allow us to constrain what areas will be allowed to be built close together to keep a semblance of reality for urban planning.

This real boon for this system of chunks and roads/areas is that it allows us to create areas that have a level designers touch but always keeps you guessing as to what will happen in each area.

Heavy Steam cross-promotion

As some of you may have noticed we are running a second Kickstarter for our next boardgame. The projects are both being run by separate sides of the company (Jeff heading up Heavy Steam and Shawn heading up Zpocalypse: Survival) but we wanted to offer those of you who are supporting both games a special thank you! As such we have a new cross promotion weapon with our sister project Heavy Steam! This new weapon will be a card in Heavy Steam and a digital unlocked weapon in Zpocalypse: Survival. The card will be added to all backers at the $30 level and higher on Heavy Steam, and the digital version will be available for anyone at the $10 level or higher on Zpocalypse: Survival. This is just a small way for us to say thank you for those supporting both of our projects.

Shout-Out

Another Kickstarter that our team is really looking forward to.

Popup Dungeon is a roguelike digital board game in a papercraft style that lets you create any weapon, ability, enemy, or hero you can imagine. Its turn-based, tactical RPG gameplay is inspired by Final Fantasy Tactics and Dungeons and Dragons board games. Delve into the dungeon alone, play with friends online and local co-op, or take control as The Dungeon Master.

We thought some of you might be interested as well since it does have some similarities with the roguelike functionality. Check it out if you are interested! As always we would love to hear from you in the comments.

Comments

My hope is that we our backers will continue to be active participants in the discussion and being a backer who had their voice heard and ended up becoming a part of a company I believe in I can honestly say that listening and working with the community is a top priority for me.

Yeah, it is kind of unfortunate that the market is the way it is. Most of us won't think twice about pledging $50-$100 or even more for a board game project, that includes nothing more than the finished product, but $20 for a video game is seen as expensive.

If we could expect our feedback to be addressed with the same regularity and the same quality of responses that our comments here are being answered, I wouldn't mind paying $5-$10 for alpha/beta for something like this.

As some folks have said, for some games, alpha builds are just spoilers and end up ruining the final game before it's even released. In cases like this, where replayability and procedural content are the focus, that's not really the case, in my opinion.

@Matt I couldn't have said it better. That is why for this campaign we were offering the game at about 50% of our planned full release price and are intending on staying away from early access on Steam.

I think the whole "early access" craze took off after the massive success of the model that Minecraft had. Previously, Mount and Blade did the same thing, though it got less recognition for it. The major difference between M&B / Minecraft and almost every other 'early access' game is that when those two did it, they charged a fraction of the final price for the alpha version of the game (which also included all future versions). I think I paid $6 for M&B, and $4 for Minecraft - which was an awesome model, both for the end users, and the developers. They got early support, word of mouth, and funding for their product, and we got Steam Sale pricing for being early adopters. Lately, it's become "Pay full price for a game that will be done in the next year maybe", which is just not good at all.

I just backed this game at $10, this is the price I like to back at I would possibly stretch to $15 but I have to really like a game to back for much more. Three and a half times as much is a lot when I don't really like to play Beta's. I would consider a $5 add on for the music.

@Patrick Again thanks for the input and I know exactlly what you mean. As I noted I backed both of those projects as well. As for Steam Early Access I agree as well. We do not plan to offer Early Access for the reasons you mentioned, however we did want to offer it to our backers, our earliest supporters if they had interest in having a voice in the early development and providing feedback and helping to influence the development of the game.

In any case, this has been a lot of really great and helpful information and we are looking at various things we can do to adjust and getting this rolling. I truelly believe that we can make this game something great, not only with all of your wonderful support but from you input and contribution just like you have been doing here.

If you don't have as much media reach as the next project does, I don't think I can help. Maybe the whole Undead/Zombie thing is dead. Maybe people are turned off by KS projects being late, as both mentioned are.

I, myself, am tired of the whole Steam/Early Access/I Am Not Done With My Game/Pay Me Now For A Hamburger On Tuesday Deal. I just hate this "Beta Forever Scheme"

I don't believe the 'media reach' that you use at all. You had a great base game (Zpoc) and a good followup game (Ninja) to attract attention. I also don't buy the excuse that Dead State had a previous following as I had heard about 'Lifeless' before 'The Walking Dead.' Seems like the latter has become more popular...... Maybe they use voodoo as I cannot explain how I backed both those projects. All I know is that I will not have to pay extra to pay for rule updates on digital versions as I will have to on Zpoc and Ninja Dice.....

@Patrick What are your thoughts? I am a bit surprised we don't have as many backers. Though I think our largest issue in attracting backers is that we simply don't have a lot of media reach for people to be aware of us. As a backer of both of those projects I know Dead State had actually been in the works for quite a long time before they went up on Kickstarter and had already developed a following, plus they have established developers working on the project. Zombie playground went with all the digital exclusives for backing at various levels which I think drew a lot people in.

Instead of asking why people are pledging only $10, maybe you should ask why nobody is pledging at all. I know they may not be similar, but the Dead State KS had 10,000 Backers and Zombie Playground had 3,700 backers.

I'm not a Beta Tester. I did Beta Access once, and it soured me on the game forever. After a thousand years of "corporate" games released too early, fully intending to use paying customers as Beta Testers, I have realized my limitations, and I will never delve into Beta Access again. (If my pledge gets it anyway, I will never partake.)

That basically means I'd be paying $25 for an unknown digital soundtrack and a random name (cuz I generally don't like my own name in my games; kills immersion for me). Too expensive for the cost-benefit analysis.

Frankly, I'm still not certain this is my kind of video game yet. But I love Zpocalypse the "analog version", Greenbrier has earned its reputation with me, and...well, almost anything is worth a $10 risk. :)

I agree with others that Alpha or Beta access is not worth extra $. I have no desire to play an unfinished game early. I have considered the soundtrack but it costs as much as the game costs itself. The $5 backpack and $5 flashlight add-ons bring back memories of the Elder Scrolls horse armor DLC and these two items together cost the same as the finished game so I just personally cannot justify spending that much on them (it would be more tempting if they were $1 each).

But, I wished to be helpful with my post, so: I would pay for additional content about the game world, such as one or more novellas (or a series of short stories) and a digital art book. I really enjoyed Michelle's fiction in update #9.

If a $25-$30 level had some fiction, some art, and the soundtrack I would bite.
I would also pay extra for decent future expansions/DLC the added playable game content (not just extra in game items).

I agree with Daniel in that being a "Beta" tester with Alpha or beta access turns me off because it does destroy the joy and excitement of getting a new game and playing it for the first time after you've been grinding through it just to find issues!

One more thing which, while not related to backer tiers specifically, is kind of in line with this discussion. The first few stretch goals are, to me, almost negatives. In rogue-lite games, unlocking new stuff is a huge part of the fun. As someone who plays a LOT of these games (it's definitely one of my favorite genres), having content that would otherwise be unlocked through gameplay unlocked at the start is kind of taking away potential replay value. Is it possible that, if these stretch goals are met, having them "active" for a given install will be optional?

--

More on topic, it sounds like you're already planning a lot of post-release support for this game; an 'All Future DLC' tier - maybe around $30 to $50 - might fit well, here. Price point really depends on what you're planning to charge for the DLC / expansions upon release.

Looking at a comparably size video game project, Jagged Alliance, they went with lots of custom naming, quotes, etc... to get funded. Perhaps besides just a name in the npc pool, you could offer the ability to name weapons, gear, locations, write flavor text, character quotes, battle cries, etc... Whatever is appropriate for what will be in your game. Unlike custom game assets it will only cost the time and hassle of coordinating with the players to get the info.

@Daniel No worries and thank you for the input. This is all very valuable feedback and we are looking at some additions changes based off feedback here. Additionally, if for a worse case scenario we do not meet our goal, this all would go a long way if we decided to restructure and re-launch at a later date.

You do bring up a good point and something we (as you mentioned) are already looking at and that is having our earliest supporters - our backers (you) playing a role in the creation of the game. Maybe there are some other opportunities that we could add at a lower price point (creating character models is pretty resource intensive) and still allow players to contribute to the game. Do you have any ideas or suggestions?

@Shawn Thanks for the reply, that is good to know. I am sure some people like the idea of chosing a name to be in the pool, so you will probably get some interest. However personally I am not interested. I almost never do beta for two reasons. One I am software engineer and do enough bug hunting at work and two I find it ruins some of the fun of the final release since I have already played large portions of the game.

What would interest me? I already own all the board game items and I am not a big fan of exclusive items for video games which is why I am on the fence about the backpack and light. I prefer KS projects to offer backers chances to design content for the benefit of all, like the things you are doing: the name thing, design a survivor, etc... Although I don't have the budget right now to spend $325, it would be cool to add my dog into the game.

@Matt Thanks again for more input! While GBG hasn't worked on any digital titles in the past directly we do have members that of the team that have and some big titles at that. Additionally, a number of us have been in the modding community for 10+ years on various small projects so we do have experience working on a digital title. However, I can understand the split of success with board games as a company does not directly relate to success with a digital game.

As to your suggestions on the pricing. I see your point and that is something I am going to definitely look at as an option and then maybe adding in a little something extra as well.

On early access (currently) we have no plans for doing early access on Steam. As I mentioned I budgeted this out pretty carefully so we shouldn't have a need for extra revenue from an early access model on Steam to get the base game completed with the resources and team we have. Then once we release the full title on Steam we would use the extra revenue to continue adding content and work towards some of our other stretch goals that we haven't even revealed yet. Now this is all assuming this funds or *hopefully* over funds. If we don't meet our goal then these things may change.

To me, at least, there's a big difference between delivering a quality digital product and a quality physical product. I feel like you've proven your ability to produce a fun board game, but the qualities that make a board game fun and those that make a video game fun are pretty dissimilar, as are the production requirements. This is your first digital product (at least that I'm aware of - has Greenbrier produced any other digital products that we may have heard of?), so prior performance really doesn't offer much assurance. Again, this is solely my opinion.

Unfortunately at the current pricing tiers, I personally will never find out how well you do or do not take backer feedback into consideration on this project. If it was $15 or $20 for the alpha/beta tier, I'd consider that (those numbers being based on your planned retail price of $19.99) - let me ask you this. If you release this on Steam, are you planning to offer an early access release there? Because if you are, you're pidgeon-holing yourself into one of two scenarios:

1) You go the route of some others (the most high-profile of which has been Planetary Annihilation) and price your early access release far above the final retail price, to match the Kickstarter price of alpha/beta access.

2) You alienate your backers by pricing the early access release at $19.99 on Steam (the vast majority of games that offer early access price it at the same as the final retail price).

If you added a new tier at the $15-$20 level that included alpha/beta access and not the soundtrack or 'name in the game' perk from the $35 level, that might be a bit more attractive. Again, though - any attraction to 'early access' levels is purely from the standpoint of someone who wants to be able to give game direction feedback and feel like it's being taken into consideration, not from that of someone who wants to play a beta 'just because'. If you feel that you can deliver on that in some meaningful way, then that may be something to consider.

@Daniel Yeah your initial character you create you can name so not much benefit there. The big draw we thought would be having the opportunity to have your name out there as a survivor that lots of people might come across. Maybe it would be more worth while if it was more than just a name? Maybe have it be a name and some personality traits or something similar?

@Matt Thanks for all the input. I know what you mean. As I mentioned I've backed over 150 projects and I understand the concern of something being vaporware because it has happened to me. Would it be better if the game was further along for people to *trust* we will deliver more? I had hoped with our previous successful Kickstarters and the fact that we have delivered on all of them that would give people a little more confidence in our ability to deliver.

As for backer feedback it is definitely important. We have already added/changed things on the Kickstarter due to backer feedback that we have received. Or first Kickstarter was almost exclusively backer driven getting Zmergency out there. How can we better portray that we do in fact listen to our backers and community?

I'm in at the $10 level currently. I already have all 3 physical products due to previous Kickstarters, so the physical rewards are not compelling to me. Multiple copies of the game are similarly not compelling, particularly due to the first 'multiple copies' level being $45, when the game itself is available for $10. (If there was an $18 or so level that included 2 copies of the game, without alpha/beta access, that might be more interesting.) Yes, the $35 level includes alpha / beta access, but as other backers have mentioned, that's not so much a reward for us as it is a reward for you. I work in QA in the games industry, so playing an alpha / beta version of a game and providing feedback isn't terribly exciting (when I'm paying for the 'privilege'), and honestly, I personally find the fact that it's considered a 'perk' in basically every digital project to grace Kickstarter to be a bit of a joke.

To expound on that a bit more, yes, having some input in the game's development is a good thing, and some game projects have done a really fantastic job of taking backer feedback and implementing it. In projects where I truly feel like my comments and concerns are being heard and considered, I'm happy to do it. However, on just as many others, I feel like comments I make fall on deaf ears. While I'm sure you'll come back and say Greenbrier plans to take backer feedback into consideration of the utmost import and all that (as every company does), that's not a gamble I'm willing to pay 150% extra to take. In short, the jump between a $10 level and a $35 level that includes as a perk a soundtrack I haven't heard (and may or may not care about) and the ability to do what I do every day for work without getting paid is, well, not compelling.

As an aside for anyone who doesn't have the physical games, the $260 level is a steal, and you should absolutely consider that.

I may not have nearly as many projects backed as some, but I will say that I've backed more than a few at a $400+ level, so I'm not one to automatically go for the cheapest thing possible. Unfortunately in this case, none of the other rewards are interesting. Designing content has never been an attractive option to me, and aside from physical rewards, that's all you've got presently.

Your question really made me think about what gets me to personally jump to a higher tier, so I went back and took a look at some other projects to see. Based on some scientifically unsound research with a fairly small sample size, it looks like Kickstarter-exclusive in-game content is worth $20ish to me on average (assuming it's significant), inclusion of / promise of future content (DLC, expansions) is worth more depending on the game / content expected - this is potentially huge... I've been known to pledge upwards of $100 on a digital product for promised future content being included, and physical exclusive "collectibles" are sometimes worth a pledge hike, though I understand these tend to be pretty expensive to produce.

I feel like I should add that having a lot of pledge tiers that include increasing levels of kickstarter-exclusive in-game content is something I've seen a few projects do and when they go too high, that tends to be a major turnoff. I want to feel like I'm getting the "complete" game, which is probably why I'm willing to pledge more to get the extra bonuses, but when that amount starts getting too high, it loses my interest quickly. I'd much rather see a $10 or $20 increase for some cool kickstarter exclusives and another $10 or $20+ increase for the promise of future DLC / expansions - that'd get me to shell out $50 pretty fast, if the content was interesting.

Just adding this here as a bit of a disclaimer: I understand kickstarter used to be about pledging money to help projects that otherwise might not be made get off the ground, not about 'buying' rewards, but I feel that anyone who still thinks that is the case, at least on the majority of products in the 'gaming' category, are rather naive. Yes, a lot of products in this category may never see the light of day without getting Kickstarter funding, but these products also have a higher rate of vaporware than most others, and a lot of us ('us' being the portion of the Kickstarter community who regularly back these type of projects) are getting a little jaded on them as a result. As such, I feel we're becoming collectively less willing to throw money at a project 'just because'. I know I for one will no longer back projects unless I feel that the rewards I'm getting are "worth" the money... and significant backer involvement in game design decisions is one way to make that happen.

@Fraydog Thank you for the input. Physical items are great and we do have a *physical version* of the game planned as a stretch goal. The problem with physical goods is that they eat a huge amount into budget not only to produce but also to ship. We could have done a lot more physical goods but the initial funding goal would have had to been much higher (which is why we currently have it as a higher stretch goal). Maybe it would help if I had a pie chart on where the current funding is going to go (basically our programmer, our artist, software licensing, our modeler, and level design)

A lot of Kickstarters (and why so many have issues or fail - yes I've been bite by these as well - between Zach, Jeff and myself we have backed over 200 projects with our personal funds) they offer the moon without knowing the cost and budgeting accordingly. That is one of the benefits of us having run 3 successful Kickstarters already. We have learned all of these lessons and can set much more realistic goals. I spent several months budgeting out this project so we can run as lean as possible but still meet all the promises we make.

@Wayne Thanks as well for the ideas. Maybe it would help if we explained our goals for Alpha and beta? For me alpha means you have most of the base features of the game but they might need more polish. Beta should be all of the main features of the game and about 75% polished. This is why we called the demo pre-alpha because it only had a minimal amount of features but we wanted to show that we can do what we are saying by showing the work we have already completed.

For your ideas I definitely like a lot of those and some are things we have included in various levels already. Maybe we aren't making the rewards clear enough? Would it have been better to have each thing listed out in each reward tier instead of relying on the pictures at the bottom of the main KS page?

I decided to go for the $10 reward because I felt as though I didn't need the $35. I would love the soundtrack but I have no interest in beta access, thus the soundtrack isn't worth $25 for me. If it was $15 or $20 I would have pledged that for the soundtrack without the beta access.

I have to agree with David Anderson. The higher level rewards don't appeal to me. Beta/Alpha access has been over hyped these days when the largest benefits from those go to the devs. Most recent game I backed to get Alpha access to was a game called stone hearth. The video showing the features looked interesting, but then the only thing in the alpha release one could do was harvest wood and berries, build a simple wall and build 1 type of prebuilt home which wouldn't even complete the roof. So I spent twice the price to play an alpha that didn't have the "basic" features as shown in the video. Not the only story in my bag, but I'll leave it at that.

I'll go through the list of least appealing to most appealing Rewards

1. Thanks
2. Thank you on social media
3. Written Thank you Letter
4. Written Thank you with autographed photo from development team
5. Soundtrack
6. Name in Credits
7. Different In-game Skins/Clothing
8. Forum Badges Unique to Backers
9. Low End Physical Items (Hats, T-shits, ect...)
10. Different In-game Items Unique To Backers
11. Behind The Scenes Making Of The Game Video
12. Med End Physical Items (Figurines, Board Games, ect..)
13. Player Input Into an enemy/character of the game.
14. Player Input into a mechanic of the game (such as being able to build/own a store/negotiate with enemies ect...)
15. All future DLCs included (this appeal rises and falls depending on DLC Expected)
16. Having a person represented as an in game character or a design of their creation included in the world.
17. Including the back story/personality of the character or creation into the game.
18. High End Physical Rewards (Furniture/Swords/A member of the Dev team ect...)

All that you are doing so far is great. This looks to be a great game. I think the only reason we are moving so slowly is the general dread Kickstarter is suffering due to some campaigns not panning out or delivering. I know I have spent A LOT in Kickstarter.

I agree with David Anderson that higher pledges might want more stuff.

Most video games have special in-game bonuses available. A lot of games have physical items that sit on my shelves. On my shelves, I have tiny helmets, tiny laser guns and even a "needle" of zombrex.

In game bonuses that do nothing for game play but make things interesting for certain players could be re-skinning the protagonists. I would love to play the game as a fat, puss-dripping zombie. With that being said, reversing the game to let us play as a zombie raid on AI survivors might be fun.

Physical items that are exclusive to this might help pick up some interest. Maybe offer a character that didn't make it in aftermath that you might already have modelled like the mechanic. Make an add-on that has the mechanic as a video game character possibly with access to his robot (or with the idea that he could build it in the future). Have this add-on also get one the physical miniature with his robot and some cards specific to them and I would pay $15-$20 more. Other decent model ideas could be more zombies like the hospital pack...cops, firemen, such as that. OOOO I would so love a better version of the fat zmaster zombie.

Perhaps let us buy a $40-60 special edition version of the pc game. With items like a nice box, a miniature, a printed manual for the pc game with some of the short stories in it, a map, a design flow chart of abilities, classes or item construction. Maybe make some of this as Zpoc Board game cards that detail the item-modding so that we can use that idea in the board game.

Give an option to let us buy the printed revised zpoc board game manual with a few extras. That would cover the situation where you said we could get the manual for postage plus a something extra for some new cards (Scavenging cards would be great). We would really be buying the new cards with the whole postage thing being involved with that.

@Kingspud Thanks for the feedback and that is kind of what I thought was holding people back that it wasn't enticing enough to jump up to that level. As to the name list you mentioned, you would be able to provide a name that we would use in our survivor generation so that when we generate survivors for the world as people play they (or you) might come across that survivor in your playthrough with the name you provided.

@David Thanks for the feedback as well. For the audio update #3 has information from the team we are partnered with. Also, at the top of the About the Game section are 3 of the audio tracks we are using in the demo.

For the addons you mentioned a number of those are unlocks in our stretch goals up to 100K where you will get a code to unlock those characters from the start rather than having to play the game and unlock them. We can see what other things we might be able to add for the other levels to make it more enticing.

You asked why some of us haven't pledged at any level >$10. Frankly, for me, the additional benefits are don't appeal to me. I'm not really interested in Beta access nor do I care about the soundtrack (not having heard it or even a preview... I don't recall seeing anything about it or the composer, so I don't have a reason to care yet).

I backed Wasteland 2 at the $50 level expressly because it came boxed, with a map and a book. I already have Zpoc (and add-ons), so the physical benefit levels for this game don't appeal to me (yet).

I would be tempted to go to a higher level by in-game add-ons (weapons, tools, etc), physical add-ons (Zpoc figures?) or a cheat code that lets me play, explore and learn the game without being driven to quit out of frustration.

To be honest with you, I pledged at the $10 because its the lowest option that would get me the game and yet not be a big enough hit to my wallet if the game never comes to fruition! Lets be real here, I get the game for my PC for only $10!!! $35 doesn't really get me anything more of value!

You get the game, which I already get in the $10 and is mainly what I want!
You get Beta Access, which is not really that big of a deal to me! I would rather wait and get a game that work instead of being a beta test for your developers. "Been there, done that!"
You get a Sound Track, which I honestly don't need!
and You get the name of your choosing in the name list??? I don't even know what this is so I know I don't card about it!
So to be even more honest, the $35 pledge should be around $20 and then I might consider it but at $35 you are going to have a hard sell getting people to bite!
I just don't see the value in it and since this is your first time developing a Computer game from your board game, I feel $10 is not too bad of a risk if it all falls apart!
I hope this helps!